About your Search

20121202
20121210
Search Results 0 to 3 of about 4 (some duplicates have been removed)
or doma. the cases aren't expected to be decided until next june, the fact that they're weighing in on the debate will have a national effect. back at the table. kenji yoshino. donna edwards, bob herbert and joining us is ray kerry. the executive director of the guy and lesbian task force. i'm going to you kenji, you're always here to set my constitutional framework for me. it's going to be two cases, right? what's at issue in the two separate cases. >> i should do them in the order you presented them. the prop 8 case is about a state ban on same-sex marriage. so there are equal protection and due process challenges. what that means is, this violates the fundamental right of fairness of streeting gay and straight couples the same. you're denying us the fundamental right to marriage. there's a quality component and a rights component to it. if the supreme court goes big on that case, it could guarantee same-sex marriage as a law of the land. flipping the 41 states that currently don't have it and requiring them to have it. i don't think that's going to happen. on the other hand, i
the federal defense of marriage act, or d doma, and another involving california's proposition 8, banning same-sex marriages in that state. for analysis into these historic cases, what's going to be a historic hearing, i want to bring in kinji yoshityoshito, professor of constitutional law at new york city. great to see you. >> good to see you. >> put prop 8 aside for a second. do you believe that the supreme court will strike down doma. this is what what you've said. walk me through your thinking on that one. >> y bet. so doma is a really narrow challenge insofar as what the statute does is it says for federal purposes marriages are defined between one man and one woman. so i think it might be best to clarify this by example. so you take edie windsor, a plaintiff coming out of new york who's going to be the plaintiff in this case. she was with another woman for 40 years. they got married in 2007. when her partner passed away, her wife passed away, for state purposes, in the eyes of new york state, she was next of kin. so her remains were released to edie. but for federal purposes, they were c
when they passed doma into law in 1996. i need to get your immediate reaction to the supreme court news this afternoon. >> well, i think it's very good for the advocates of marriage equality that the court took both of these issues up. the first issue is this question of the defense of marriage act. it was passed really in the middle of the night in 1996 and signed very reluctant lie by president clinton and e sin essentially says one state does not have to recognize the marriage equality rights another state may give. if you are married legally in the state of massachusetts and you happen to reside -- this is as a gay couple -- and you happen to reside in the state of california, the state of california does not need to recognize your massachusetts marriage, and as a result there are over 1,000 benefits that can be denied to a legally married gay couple if they happen to be living in a state that doesn't recognize gay marriage. my guess is the supreme court will declare that unconstitutional because there is a long tradition under the privileges and immunities clause of the constitutio
Search Results 0 to 3 of about 4 (some duplicates have been removed)